All Blogs
OperationsUX
What Bridge Crew Actually Need From a Detection System
By Vignesh D. · March 1, 2026 · 5 min read
We sat with masters and chief officers across four operators. The list of what they want is shorter — and more pragmatic — than most product teams assume.
Bridge consoles already have hundreds of indicators. The fast way to make a new safety system useless is to add another screen with another red light. We started this work assuming the bridge interface needed to be sophisticated. The crew told us, repeatedly, the opposite.
What they actually want
- A single trust state — green / amber / red — visible at a glance.
- Deck and bay coordinates on alarm. Not GPS. Not vehicle VIN. The coordinates they use to brief the response team.
- A way to silence and acknowledge that does not require menu navigation.
- Confidence that a red state means red. False alarms erode the system within two voyages.
What they explicitly do not want
- Predictive scoring. "85% likelihood" is unactionable on a bridge.
- Heatmap visualization that requires interpretation.
- Integration with vessel ECDIS or other navigation systems.
"Tell me where, tell me how serious, tell me how confident you are. Then let me decide. That is all I need."— Master, 7,200-CEU PCTC
Sources
- IMO Resolution MSC.428(98) — Maritime Cyber Risk Management in Safety Management Systems (bridge-systems context).
- IEC 62288 — Maritime Navigation and Radiocommunication Equipment: Presentation of navigation-related information.
- International Chamber of Shipping — "Bridge Procedures Guide" (5th Edition).
- Stanton, N. A. — "Alarm Initiated Activities," Ergonomics literature on alarm fatigue (peer-reviewed; widely cited in maritime human-factors work).
- ABS — "Guide for Ergonomic Notations and Bridge Workstation Design."
- [VERIFY: Master/Chief-Officer attributions — quoted with permission under operator NDA; vessel identifiers redacted at the operator's request.]